Professional Negligence Law Reporter

An Iowa appellate court held that a trial court had correctly precluded the plaintiffs’ evidence of a defendant physician’s prior professional disciplinary matters.

Kathy Hazen died after undergoing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed by physician William Olson. Hazen’s estate and husband sued Olson, alleging medical negligence. Before trial, Olson filed a motion in limine, seeking to exclude any evidence of other claims or disciplinary actions against him. The trial court granted the motion, holding that any cases or disciplinary matters against Olson would be inadmissible. The plaintiffs appealed.

Affirming, the appellate court noted that under the state rules of evidence, irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. Citing case law, the court found that the determining factors in the decision to exclude evidence are whether the evidence has probative value and whether there is a danger of prejudicial or wrongful effect on the trier of fact. Here, the court found, the plaintiffs’ offer of proof included no information regarding the basis for Olson’s disciplinary matters, and the evidence did not relate to his medical knowledge or medical care.

Consequently, the court held that the trial court had not erred in concluding the evidence was irrelevant. The court also concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion in finding that the evidence would have been more prejudicial than probative if submitted to a jury.

Citation: Hazen v. Genesis Health Sys., 10 N.W.3d 437 (Iowa Ct. App. 2024).